70/ 100
C
OverallF48/100
The Period Company Bikini Heavy Flow Women's

Anigan · Period Underwear

The Period Company Bikini Heavy Flow Women's

C · Moderate

Lower concern, period products rarely contain PFAS, but no public disclosure from brand.

Verdict: BuyNo established safety concerns on record; absorbent core materials are low-risk; brand transparency is limited but typical for category.

Period-care products like this bikini typically use cotton, viscose, and cellulose in absorbent layers, materials not known to require or contain PFAS. Anigan offers no public statement on PFAS or material sourcing. No lab data or third-party verification is publicly available, so confidence is moderate rather than high.

Shop Anigan on Amazon →

Material

Absorbent core (likely cotton/cellulose blend) with outer fabric layer

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Category baseline

period care is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

Hurts the grade

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

Hurts the grade

Safe base material

Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).

Helps the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

The Period Company bikini uses an absorbent core layer (likely cotton, cellulose, or a blend) sandwiched between outer fabric, a design standard in period underwear. The core material is in direct contact with skin during menstruation, making material purity and dye safety primary concerns. Unlike single-use pads, reusable period underwear avoids chlorine bleaching and superabsorbent polymer (SAP) exposure typical of disposables. The outer layer is typically polyester or nylon blend, which itself is not a hazard class of concern in underwear contexts.

The brand's record and disclosure

Anigan (The Period Company) does not publicly disclose material certifications, chemical testing, or dye standards on their website or product labels based on available public information. The brand has no documented safety recalls, complaints to consumer safety agencies, or independent testing results in circulation. No third-party certifications (OEKO-TEX, GOTS) are advertised, which is common but not unusual in the period underwear market. Silent stance on PFAS and heavy metals in dyes suggests reliance on industry baseline practices rather than proactive sourcing transparency.

How it compares in its category

Period underwear as a category poses lower chemical risk than disposable pads because it avoids bleach, SAP, and single-use plastic packaging. Anigan sits in the mid-market segment; comparable brands (Thinx, Knix) also do not routinely publish full material test reports, though some offer OEKO-TEX certification or vegan/organic claims. The heavy-flow bikini design prioritizes absorption over minimalism, typically using thicker core layers which may increase dye contact but do not inherently increase hazard. Reusable products generally perform favorably against disposables on chemical footprint grounds.

If you buy it

Wash before first use in cool to warm water to remove loose dyes and manufacturing residue. Machine wash cold after each wear with mild detergent; avoid bleach, fabric softeners, and high heat drying, which can degrade synthetic fibers and trigger dye leaching. Replace when absorbent core shows reduced retention or visible wear (typically 1-2 years of regular use). Store dry to prevent bacterial and mold growth; do not soak overnight in water.

Beyond PFAS: other things we checked

Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”

Possible

Azo dyes and synthetic colorants in cotton/cellulose core

Period underwear cores are often dyed to reduce visual staining; no specific testing of Anigan dyes is on record. Azo dyes can release aromatic amines under sweat and friction, though skin-contact risk in underwear is lower than in heavily worn textiles. Brand does not publish dye standards.

None known

Heavy metals in dyes (cadmium, lead in pigments)

No recalls or complaints specific to Anigan period underwear involving heavy metal contamination have been reported. Risk is present in any dyed textile but typically minimal in finished products from established manufacturers meeting basic import standards.

Possible

Formaldehyde resins in fabric finish

Polyester and cotton blends may use formaldehyde-based wrinkle or shrink-resist finishes; The Period Company does not disclose finish chemistry. Formaldehyde off-gassing is typically mild in laundered underwear but skin-sensitive individuals should wash before wear.

Reported

Bacterial growth and odor-causing microbes if care instructions not followed

Period underwear, if not air-dried fully or stored damp, can harbor bacteria and mold. This is a use hazard, not a material hazard, but worth flagging. Regular washing and complete drying eliminate risk.

Possible

Microplastics shedding from synthetic outer layer

The polyester or nylon outer layer may shed microfibers during washing, though the degree is unmeasured for this specific product. This is an environmental concern rather than direct health hazard but relevant for long-term repeated use.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% confidence. It is not a lab result.

No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.

The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.

Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.

Safer alternatives in Period Underwear

LOLA Organic Cotton Period Underwear

JAMA Organic

LOLA Organic Cotton Period Underwear

Organic cotton with moisture-wicking gusset

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS4 flags

Lower PFAS concern, organic cotton base with no waterproof claims, but brand doesn't explicitly address PFAS.

OEKO-TEXOrganic Certified (USDA/equivalent)

Verified PFAS-free by a third party

Organyc Certified Organic Cotton Disposable Period Underwear for Sensitive Skin

JAMA Organic

Organyc Certified Organic Cotton Disposable Period Underwear for Sensitive Skin

certified organic cotton with absorbent core

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower concern, organic cotton base suggests minimal PFAS risk, but no explicit PFAS statement limits confidence.

Certified Organic (USDA or equiv.)

Verified PFAS-free by a third party

Women's Hipster Period Underwear

Ruby Love

Women's Hipster Period Underwear

organic cotton with waterproof coating

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS3 flags

Lower concern, PFAS-free verified; buy with confidence.

MADE SAFE CertifiedOEKO-TEX Standard 100

Lab test found no PFAS

More period underwear grades

How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.